Why unfortunately? Are you suggesting that air conditioning sidewalks in Qatar is a luxury? Because the only other option I can think of is for people to leave Qatar. It’s far from a luxury.
Yes, because air conditioning units have net positive heat generation. Though they usually use water as their heat sinks, and if that water is flushed then it effectively eliminates the heat in a practical sense if not a thermodynamic sense.
Reply in comment, since HN is rate limiting my VPN.
> Yes, because air conditioning units have net positive heat generation. Though they usually use water as their heat sinks, and if that water is flushed then it effectively eliminates the heat in a practical sense if not a thermodynamic sense.
This is assuming that the terrain without solar panels would convert as much energy into heat as the solar panels are collecting. In reality the terrain without solar panels reflects a lot of the energy it receives, whereas solar panels are optimized to absorb as much of it as possible.
This is wrong. The net positive heat generation comes from the energy that the ACs consume. If they are entirely running on solar power this energy would have become heat anyway.
Those greenhouse gases have of course a measurable effect, but I believe it's still the energy source that's responsible for most of the carbon footprint here.
Especially if the units are supplied with electricity generated from burning oil.
There must be alternatives to trying to battle the sun in this way. Could people spend more time indoors, like in extreme Artic environments, or even possibly underground?
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/03/countries-crank-ac-e...